Errors in IPCC climate science

• Home
• A Critical Examination of Climate Change
• About the authors

8 Responses

1. pattoh Says:
   November 21st, 2010 at 7:14 pm

   Gee whiz!

   If they can massage another “hottest record” into this somewhere without admitting UHI or dodgy thermometer locations they should all be selling used cars while standing for parliament.

2. val majkus Says:
   November 22nd, 2010 at 7:38 pm

   and here’s a fascinating link (thanks el gordo)
   www.holtonweather.com/WHAT%20IS%20THE%20MAIN%20FACTOR%20CONTROLLING%20THE%20MURRAY%20DARLING%20BASIN%20SYSTEM%20RAINFALL.pdf
   conclusions:
   The results show that the Sinusoidal Solar-Lunar Cycles have controlled the general Murray Darling Basin (South QLD-NSW-VIC-SA) Rainfall Trends from 1900 to 2006….During the critical Autumn to Spring & River- Dam inflow- Irrigation and Dry-land farming period….And the most helpful information about this close connection, is that we are able, from the Copeland and Watts Sinusoidal Model, to forecast with a high degree of confidence the next 30 years or so Murray Darling Basin General Rainfall & Dam Inflow Trends…As the future plotted Sinusoidal Model Trace is based on regular and recurring cycles that have not altered significantly in the past, and should not alter significantly in the future…..Therefore, any general Murray Darling Basin Southern Wet Season General Rainfall Trends that we can forecast from the Sinusoidal Solar-Lunar Model are highly likely to be accurate general trend rainfall & dam inflow forecasts.

   It is the firm opinion of the author that weather, ocean and rainfall patterns are cyclic. They always have been, and always will continue to do so…….And that any dire predictions of continuing & worsening drought in the Murray Darling Basin, and in fact in any region of Australia, are entirely unfounded.

3. What You Need To Know About Aquarium Heaters | Aquarium Store Online Says:
   November 22nd, 2010 at 8:57 pm

   [...] Errors in IPCC climate science » Blog Archive » #4 Temperature too … [...]

4. Richard C (NZ) Says:
   November 22nd, 2010 at 9:57 pm

   huge areas of Australia turned out way cooler than normal – a fact which the BoM models utterly failed to predict.

   And from “Negating climate change policy”, Dr David RB Stockwell:

   But the SoC says CSIRO/BoM use scientific modeling based on the laws of physics

   So the real world is not in agreement with the SoC and neither are physicists. From G&T 2009:

   In global climatology temperatures are computed from given radiation intensities, and this exchanges cause and effect. The current local temperatures determine the radiation intensities and not vice versa.

   Also heat conduction at the ocean-atmosphere interface is ignored in the current model configurations. The AGW hypothesis is in direct contravention of the laws of physics to start with despite the efforts of the proponents to modify the law so that cool objects transfer heat to warm objects. The bizarre extension of their reasoning is that in their view, the suns temperature is higher due to the presence of the earth than it would be if the earth was non-existent.

   From “Negating climate change policy” again:

   and thoroughly tested against recorded observations.

   Yes they have been “tested against recorded observations” and apart from the apparent correlation of the 70′s, 80′s and 90′s, the models have not got the foggiest clue in hindcast, particularly the 30′s, 40′s, 50′s, 60′s warm-cool phase change and the last decade since 2000. Not that it’s the model’s fault, they’ve been hard-wired with bogus CO2 forcing datasets.

   So in the absence of solar-lunar natural cycles built into the model parameters they still fail when CO2 forcing is removed for the IPCC version of “natural forcings only” simulations.

   That the performance of the CSIRO ACCESS and POAMA models is less than useful comes as no surprise given that they opted for the UKMO core of “barbeque summer” infamy. NZ’s NIWA in me-too group-think fashion saw CSIRO’s adoption of UKMO software and in turn opted for off-the-shelf UKMO UM, so NIWA’s forecasts are equally predestined to fail.

   It is disappointing that a great deal of work has gone into V&V for say, AER’s Radiative Transfer Model (RRTMG) which is the module that is then inserted into NCAR’s CESM1 GCM only for the whole atmospheric component (CAM) to then be distorted by the same old familiar Law Dome ice core – Mauna Loa splice, CO2 ppm spin-up dataset.

   And still the climate modeling community ignore natural cycles that are the real climate drivers in favour of consensus science that churns out reality defying predictions.

   Commercial operators are not so silly. From

   “Inquiry into long-term meteorological forecasting in Australia”

   2.69
   The Committee was astounded to learn that private enterprises are apparently able to forecast particular seasonal conditions and events, which may not necessarily have been forecast by our leading national agencies. The question that came to the mind of Committee members when this issue came to light was “how did you forecast these events and why didn’t anyone else?” When considering the skills, knowledge and expertise in our national agencies, the question that came to mind was “what do they know that CSIRO and the Bureau don’t?”

   [H/T David Stockwell, Niche Modeling]

5. Tom Harley Says:
   November 23rd, 2010 at 5:33 am

   BOM are predicting 22 cyclones for the tropics this season, nearly double the average. With warmer waters in the north they may get this right, however last year, the sea was also warm, but there were few cyclones. Any thoughts?
   Our temperature in Broome is strongly associated with sea surface temps in the NWest, resulting in above average minimum and maximum temperatures since June 2009. The Oct 2009 minimum and the August 2009 and Jan 2010 maximums, are the only periods where there was a below average record in this 17 month period. Great weather!

6. Douglas Hoyt Says:
   November 24th, 2010 at 7:35 am

   Another reason for the warm bias in the models may be the way they handle numerical imbalances in the energy budget. If I understand it correctly, for any particular grid square, if there is a net energy imbalance at the end of the day, the net imbalance is uniformly redistributed over all the grid squares. This maintains the energy balance, but perhaps it is not realistic. Instead of retaining energy in the Earth, perhaps it escapes to space, in whole or in part. Allowing such escape would allow for long-term oscillations in climate. Suppressing such escape will suppress natural climate variability and lead to a larger net warming.

7. TWAWKI » Cancun climate clowns Says:
   November 26th, 2010 at 3:23 pm

   [...] ‘global warming’ for its failure to get accurate predictions. So in other words the BOM blames it’s ineptitude on the myth that it creates and perpetuates. And then they go on to ‘predict’ more droughts when the natural [...]

8. Tweets that mention Errors in IPCC climate science » Blog Archive » #4 Temperature too – not just rain – ongoing BoM utter incompetence – month after month after month -- Topsy.com Says:
   December 3rd, 2010 at 11:51 am

   [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by John Leal, Robert James. Robert James said: Errors in IPCC climate science » Blog Archive » #4 Temperature too – not just rain – ongoing BoM utter incompetence goo.gl/UBwxi [...]

Leave a Comment